Responding to allegations that bulk Form-7 applications were filed in Uttar Pradesh, the Election Commission on Friday told the Supreme Court that none of those forms had been acted upon by the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant EROs.“It is humbly submitted that no name is deleted without giving notice and without passing a reasoned order by the EROs/ AEROs. All the complaints related to Form 7 are carefully inquired and resolved by the Election Officers as per the rules,” the EC said in its counter-affidavit filed on September 16.Form 7 is used to lodge objections against the proposed inclusion of a name in the voter list, or to request the deletion of a name from the electoral rolls on specific grounds.According to the Registration of Electors Rules (RER), 1960, EROs are required to hold hearings before passing speaking orders on each form.The EC said “none of the Form 7s mentioned” in the plea “were received or submitted in accordance with the above-noted procedure prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with RER, 1960 as well as the SIR Guidelines. As such, no deletion resulted therefrom. Therefore, the allegation of systemic misuse of Form 7 is baseless and erroneous”.It pointed out that there had been a total of 4,65,520 deletions through Form 7s in UP, and that there had been 252 appeals filed by electors against the orders of EROs, including deletions. The UP SIR ended on April 10 with the publication of the final electoral roll.Must Read | Admitting ‘instances of bulk Form 7 filing for voter deletion’, EC sets limitOn Friday, the petitions filed by Congress MP Tanuj Punia and Samajwadi Party leader Arvind Kumar Singh came up before a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.Story continues below this adAppearing for the EC, Senior Advocate D S Naidu told the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana: “That has been addressed. We found that bulk Form 7s had been given. Our officers went, checked and cross-checked. They were false and we have not acted”.The counsel for the applicant countered this and said that in one constituency, 32 Form 7s were submitted for one particular community, of which 2 were signed by BLOs.He contended that as no remedial measures were taken during UP SIR, similar situations emerged in states like Karnataka and Telangana too.The bench asked the counsel to provide details of its remaining concerns to the Commission, which it said would examine the factual aspects, take necessary corrective steps and file a compliance report.Story continues below this adOn a plea challenging SIR in Kerala, Naidu submitted that the exercise was over and elections had also been conducted using the revised rolls. The court declined to extend the time for SIR and said that though the EC had completed the process, inclusion of anyone left out erroneously can continue.“SIR in Kerala is complete. However, counsel for petitioner states that there are several persons who could not submit the enumeration form on account of shortage of time. Let the petitioner furnish details of such persons to the EC, which shall consider the same sympathetically and submit a report to this court,” the SC said in its order.The court also gave the EC four weeks to respond to a petition alleging large-scale voter deletions in Chhattisgarh.